15/07/2014 Daily Politics

David Cameron's been a busy bee this morning conducting the most

far-reaching Government reshuffle since he became Prime Minister.

Phillip Hammond is the new Foreign Secretary, taking over from William

The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, is moved to Chief Whip.

There'll be more women around the Cabinet table.

A long time coming some would say, but are departing male ministers

The European Commission's also been dishing out jobs this morning.

It's got a new president, Jean Claude Juncker.

And "mistaken and dangerous" or " an act of kindness"?

The House of Lords debates assisted dying on Friday.

We'll be talking to the man behind the Bill, Lord Falconer.

And with us for the duration is Sir Paul Coleridge, who was

a high court judge in the Marriage Division until just recently.

Now, without further ado, let's get down to the nuts and bolts of David

Cameron's reshuffle - the most extensive since he took office.

It's already been dubbed the cull of the white, middle-aged man, or the

So let's have a look at who's out and who's in.

The big news last night was that William Hague is leaving the

He is going to be the new Leader of the House of Commons before he steps

The current Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, will replace

The new Defence Secretary will be Michael Fallon,

who is promoted from his job at the Department for Business.

The other big news today is that Michael Gove is moving

from the Department for Education to become the new Chief Whip.

Nicky Morgan, currently a Treasury Minister, will replace Mr Gove

Another big move is Liz Truss, who is promoted to Cabinet

The Prime Minister has also announced that Lord Hill,

the current Leader of the Lords, will be his nomination

Let's talk to our Deputy Political Editor, James

James, this is far more radical and dramatic than you, or I or anyone

expected. Ye, it is the Prime Minister has gone to make a bold

statement here. Most reshoveles fairly percolate out of Westminster

as people sit here and say - somebody replaced by somebody else I

didn't know. This is radical enough to breakthrough and say - there is

real change going on. A new Foreign Secretary. Will that bring any

change in foreign policy, particularly in Europe? William

Hague being replaced by Philip Hammond the former Defence

Secretary. Philip Hammond last a track record of being eurosceptic.

He has in the past allowed the idea to go twha he, if he had a chance,

if there was a referendum now, that he would be tempted to vote no and

we should leave the European Union. We have Michael Gove leaving

education to become Chief Whip. Fascinating. Number Ten insisting it

is not a demotion. But he is not a full men of the Cabinet. He will be

paid less. His aim is to communicate the Government's policies over the

next ten months. What does it mean for education? Education has been a

big message for the Government. They have been driving the reforms

through, primarily because of Michael Gove's energy and passion

for that job. Has it now been a question that that drive, that

passion was beginning to look arrogant and perhaps was urning it

off some voters, particularly those in the education world - was turning

off some voters. And parents. Number Ten insist the education reforms

will carry on. A lot of change. The interesting question is what they

will do in the new posts? Let's pick up on that. You mentioned Michael

Gove, Chief Whip, William Hague, stepping down as Foreign Secretary,

becoming Leader of the House. Is this the case of senior figures

being released now because this Government is on election footing?

We have just got the latest arrival. Penny Morden who appeared. You heard

it there - in the programme called Splash. She did very well when she

gave a speech just after the Queen's Speech a few weeks ago and the Prime

Minister was known to favour her. We expect her to be another of those

women who will make gains. The interesting question, as you say,

Jo, is the Government now on election footing. The answer is,

yes, it is. It has been for sometime. William Hague and Michael

Gove have been freed up from busy jobs to be able to get on the -

Gove have been freed up from busy the Prime Minister's official

spokesman, not even the political spokesman, not even the political

Service spokesman said -- you can expect to see an awful lot of

Michael goal of on radio and television channels in the months

ahead. The interesting question is - how else are they going to reshape

the Government? Will they have a huge increase in women? All the

middle ranking ministers have coming in to get their jobs now. I think we

will get a very large number of them women by the end. As you say, it is

about presentation, it is about the Government renewing itself in

office. It is something all governments try to do. They try to

change the personnel. The question is, will it work this time. We will

come back to you in a few minutes tripe. Maybe more face also have

gone in and out of the famous black door behind you. There has been

plenty more activity overnight and this morning at Cabinet level.

the current Chief Whip, Sir George Young, Minister without

Portfolio, Ken Clarke, Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson

Other big names are also out - Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,

Leader of the Commons, Andrew Lansley, Universities Minister,

David Willetts, International Development Minister, Alan Duncan,

Also leaving Government are Oliver Heald, Nick Hurd,

Andrew Robathan, Stephen Hammond, Greg Barker and Hugh Robertson.

Esther McVey stays as Employment Minister

The new Attorney General is Jeremy Wright, currently

Stephen Crabb is promoted to Cabinet as the new Secretary of State

Greg Clark is the new Minister for Science and Universities

And Matt Hancock is also promoted to Energy Minister

Let's go back to James Landale in Downing Street.

We will go back there in a few minutes' time. We saw before we left

him there, Penny Mordent. MP, who went into number Ten and I think

following on her footsteps was Amber Rudd. I think we can talk to James

who is in position outside number Ten. What do you think of the charge

that this is the cull of white middle-aged, men, is it fair? It is

an apt description. A lot of white, middle-aged men have lost their

jobs, who have been Conservativing in the Cabinet, and have lost their

jobs. Most have gone relatively gracefully. What will happen now, is

one or two of them who are now seething behind closed doors will

wait for their moment to explode and write an article for a Sunday

newspaper or give an interview in which they will express their

concern about how they were sacked unfairly and it is unfair. Basically

a lot of these people have done reasonable jobs. The Prime Minister

does not think they have done a bad job. He simply needs to renew the

Government. It is always a tough call to make. Those MPs, those

ministers who lost their jobs in the last major reshuffle two years ago,

they, many of them are still pretty angry, I can tell you. They can

cause trouble on the backbenches. The issue now is we are now ten

months away from a general election. The pressure for party discipline is

such that the calculation Downing Street will be making is that - the

angry, sacked dismissed ex-ministers will feel enough sense of electoral

loyal Tyne a desire to be re-elected themselves, that they will not rock

the boat too much. One or two will not follow that pattern. But felt

vulnerable to the charge that they zrnt a diverse enough looking

Cabinet and Government? Yes and this is something that all the three

largest parties at Westminster are acutely aware of, both in terms of

frontbenches and governments but in terms of the MPs they have selected.

It is not just about employment. It is about the number of women to

apply to have the jobs. A lot of surveys suggests that many women are

put off entering politics because of the nature of British politics. It

is something they want tow counter. Whether or not the Prime Minister

achieves his aim today in having a third of the Government made up of

women by the end of the day, but that was the tall order some years

ago he set himself. We will come back to you later and you can give

us an update. With us now is the former Welsh

Secretary, Cheryl Gillan and the former Children's Minister, Tim

Loughton. Cheryl, has it been a long time

coming this, promotion of women? I think it probably has, yes. I think

women are not only underrepresented in Parliament but they have been

unrepresented in Conservative ministerial ranks for many moons.

When you consider, when I was made a Cabinet minister in 2010, I was only

the fifth Conservative woman ever to serve at Cabinet level. I think

that's a crying shame. There are 49 women on our bedges and there's

plenty of talent. What -- on our benches. What I have been pleased to

see is some of these women who have been promoted I think are tip-top

and will outperform the men. Who? Let's look at Niki Morgan. She is in

the Cabinet from the Treasury to replace plyingal Gove. Is she up to

the job of carrying on with those reforms? I think she is. I don't

think that would be a question you would scoff a man going into that

position. I think she has been a feisty character she has singularity

of mind, good education and she will make aed good job. She follow in the

footsteps of Gillian Shepherd, a first-class Education Secretary.

Nobody questioned whether she was up to the job. Liz Truss, I was with

her last night, she is a very feisty, capable woman who knows what

she wants in terms of both her family life and the balance she has

there as well as her political career and what she gives to the

country. I think we should welcome those appointments. Any other women

you would like to have seen in? I don't want to see women promoted too

rapidly without that hinterland and that political hinterland they need

to be able to develop well in ministerial roles. I think he has

chosen well with the people he has put N he is letting other women

attend Cabinet but not of Cabinet rank, a good way of bringing them

on. Don't forget, the Prime Minister has very little room to manoeuvre

because he has Liberal Democrat posts to fill. He has undergone a

radical reshuffle of the pack here. He has. I think it is important in a

run-up to an election that a Prime Minister - this is his trump card,

and what Prime Ministers do, that they can reshuffle the pack, but can

I say that is not to say that I don't think there has been equally,

very, very capable men who have left office. Right. You, Tim Loughton, we

could say you are a middle-aged white man. Not that pale. You lost

your ministerial job last time round. You know how it feels. How

much resentment will there be? It was before the last time around. It

was 2012. It is a horrible thing reshoveles. Both for the Prime

Minister and the person on the wrong end of the rankings. But it is

particularly annoying because you think you are doing a good job and

you have kept your nose clean and you get some plaudits in the press

but still you have to make way for somebody else and it is particularly

galling. But that's politics. Politics isn't fair. As Jameses a

saying earlier, the reshuffle isn't fair. I agree with Cheryl. There is

really good women coming through entirely on talent. Pound-for-pound,

I would say, that the women who were brought in in 2010, without do many

of the men. There is talented people. The trouble s you don't want

to promote them too early. Have they been promoted too quickly? Nicky

Morgan, great talent. She took to being a minister like a duck to

water. She has a big brief. She has a marginal seat. Liz Truss, another

natural. They have been bumped up but we are eight or nine months away

for campaigning from a general election and many people investment

marginal seats. That will be a consideration. Do you think and do

you agree the charge that this is a cull, if you like, that actually

someone might say - sexists, do you think it is fair? Of course it is

not fair. James said it wasn't fair. No reshuffle is fair. But what I

think is fair is that the women who are coming forward are really good

talents, will do great jobs as ministers and will portray a good

face for the Tory Party that has been missing. Will this cut through,

Paul coal ridge, to the general public who, most to of the time at

reof shovels, people always say moving in one person you don't know

being replaced by another? ? I moving in one person you don't know

it is radical, so I think it is tribe a chord but this is surely all

about positioning, as James Landale said, for the next general election,

and that s I would imagine, the overwhelming consideration in

Government at the moment. So, this is all about, I suppose, making sure

you present a new, fresh, image to the public, you ditch all the people

who bring with them a lot of rather unpleasant policy decisions that

have gone on in the last few years and you present a new image to the

electorate. Is this a friendlier face of the Conservative Government?

Is this what David Cameron is trying to do? People who are telegenic, who

will be able to communicate the message - that this is about a

cinder, friendlier face, or is that not how you see it? I very much am

hoping it is not as shallow as you are trying to make it out to be, I

don't think it is necessarily about looking good on TV or promoting

women for president sake of it. They have to be able to do the job. I

think that these particular women, will be able to cut mustard but I

agree with Paul, I think the Prime Minister needed to have a new and

fresh approach and I think that he is sharpening up the party for what

is going to be a very hard fight in this next general election. And we

need politics that is constantly being lampooned at being out of

touch with the people, we only have three women in Cabinet, that is not

right or fair, when we have such intelligent women who should be in

Cabinet. We are starting to see that. David Cameron might have

wanted to get rid of people who had too much baggage, do you think that

is the case with your boss, Michael Gove, deemed too controversial? I am

probably not the right person to be asked about Michael Gove. But it was

probably right. But he is being moved to Chief Whip, to bring the

whip to bear on everybody else! Be afraid, be very afraid! We were

surprised, and there is a big irony here because I think the education

reforms have been one of the big successes of this government.

Michael, whether you like him or not, he is controversial, took on

the mediocre educational establishment and force through a

lot of changes. Or alienating the educational establishment. The irony

is that he is seen as a divisive and controversial figure, so in opinion

poll terms it is not done us the good it deserves to have done. That

is the problem. Let's see about Owen Paterson, you could have said a

cheerleader for the right. Will there be unhappiness about that on

the backbenches? Yes, I think so, because Owen is seen very much as a

flag waver for the right and the Eurosceptic side of the party. I

also hope with the two vacancies into which the two women have gone,

there will not be this discussion about, are these two breeds that are

associated with women? Why do we have Michael Fallon - macro two

briefs. Why do we have Michael Fallon going in as Defence Secretary

when we do not have a woman? He has tried to make sure, David Cameron,

that we put the message across that this party has changed. He has been

consistent on that right from the beginning when he stood as leader

for the party. He came in as leader of the party to change the face of

this party, and that is what he's doing, and my colleagues and myself

have to understand that nobody is indispensable. There always live

after a reshuffle on the backbenches, and Tim and I know

that. There speaks the voice of experience from the backbenches. If

you are disappointed about Owen Paterson going, are you pleased that

Philip Hammond is the new Foreign Secretary? Do you think he will

bolster that Eurosceptic feeling? Yes, I think it is a good

appointment. I came in at the same time as Philip. The whole story will

be about renegotiating with Europe ahead of a referendum. William has

done one a fantastic job. One of the best foreign secretaries, but has

not been outspoken on euro scepticism as many would like to be

and like it or not, that will be the name of the game, post-2015. Dominic

Grieve, finally, sacked from being Attorney General, some say partly

because he supported the European Convention on human rights. How do

you view that from a legal perspective? I think it is a very

political decision to make. The idea of having a different Attorney

General putting a different spin on the attitude of the courts towards

the European convention on human rights is in reality Fantasy

Football Club a present from a political point of view at the time

of the election, it may prevent a feeling that perhaps the government

are less friendly towards the EEC H R than they are in fact. This is a

piece of legislation now so deeply entrenched in the way the courts

work. Removing the Attorney General is really peripheral. We are going

to leave it there, thank you very much.

is really peripheral. We are going to leave Ken Clarke and Owen

Paterson are not the only Westminster figures who have found

themselves out of a job this week. Baroness Butler-Sloss, who was

appointed only last week by Home Secretary Theresa May, yesterday

announced that she would step down as chairman of the new inquiry

into alleged child abuse by the establishment,

citing what she called a widespread perception that she was

the wrong person for the job. It was just in time for Mrs May to

appear in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, where she was

grilled over her due diligence in appointing the baroness,

in particular, claims that Baroness Butler-Sloss's brother

Michael Havers had attempted to play I believe that the experience of

Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had, and her personal integrity... We all accept

this, we are all great fans of Elisabeth Butler-Sloss's integrity,

that is not in question. What we have that to you twice is did you

know of this specific incident involving Mr Dickens and Sir Michael

Havers? This is an issue that has been raised in the last few days,

and it has surfaced in the last few days as far as I am concerned. Do we

take that as being a no? I have answer the question in the way I

wish to answer it, chairman. Did Juno Baroness Butler-Sloss, I

presume? Very well. She has been a figure in my professional life since

the very day I started, many, many decades ago. She started as a junior

judge, she worked her way up. She is universally respected. In the last

few decades, she has been the president of the family division,

the biggest family job in the country. She was chairman, as we

know, of the extraordinarily important Cliveden enquiry which

looked at the passing of the children's act. There is frankly

nobody... That is not true, there are very few people who have her

experience, and she is also a woman of most extraordinary wisdom and

common sense. But was she right to resign from her appointment to head

up this enquiry? I think she provably was. I suspect nobody had

given proper thought to this angle at the time she was appointed.

Really? You don't think the Home Secretary should have thought about

it, should have thought about how sensitive it was? Somebody must have

slightly dropped the ball in not noticing that her brother had been

involved in the government many, many decades ago, perhaps. I think

if that had been properly considered at the time, she would probably not

have been considered for the job. She is a woman of huge wisdom, and

has come to the decision I think quite rightly that if she was to

make findings which were not finding is that some of the victims want to

be made, the comment would always be made, well, she would say that,

wouldn't she, because she is protecting her. And protecting the

establishment. I don't think I am very impressed by that, but possibly

her brother. The problem is who do you get to head up an enquiry with a

similar level of expertise? The problem here is that people don't

trust the establishment, and having an establishment figure will make it

difficult. There are non-establishment judges, I would

rather not mention names, but there are judges I can think of who have

retired quite recently and have had no particular connections with

government and have had no big jobs like President of the family

division who would certainly be up to doing this. Child abuse is the

meat and drink of the family division. And we get appointed to do

these kind of specific enquiries from time to time, and I don't

think, if they spend a little time, it won't be difficult to find

somebody who has the expertise. Was it right for the Prime Minister to

call for this overarching enquiry into child abuse? I think it was. As

everybody says, things have changed very dramatically in the course of

the last 30 years, particularly since the passing of the children's

act. But these skeletons in the cupboard, if they exist, need to be

brought out and exposed and dealt with in the same way as all these

other cases have come to light. I don't think we can shove all this

stuff under the carpet any more. Jean-Claude Juncker has been

speaking in the European Parliament in Strasbourg this morning, ahead

of a debate and vote on approving his appointment as President

of the European Commission. The session was basically seen

as a rubber stamp for Mr Juncker, What about Britain? I am defending

the single currency, because the single currency is protecting

Europe, its economy, its citizens. But in reality, you know and we know

that none of this really matters. The deal has been done. The spoils

have been shared out. The election that was supposed to end all of

these deals has resulted in the mother of all backroom deals. You

know and we know that you are likely to be the next president of the

commission, and Mr Juncker, we wish you well, but members of my

political group will not be able to vote for you today for two reasons:

Firstly, we do not subscribe to the process that brought you here. We do

not believe that you have an EU wide mandate that stretches all the way

across the memo states. Secondly, members of my group are not yet

convinced that you are the right man to lead the charge for European

reform. Green so what of our nominee? On the plus side, still

Juncker, you are a sociable cove with a much better since of tumour

than most people I have met in Brussels. And there is no question

that you are a political operator, and you even managed to come over

the last couple of weeks, as you have gone around the political

groups, changed the mood music of it. You said you don't believe in

the United States of Europe, you don't believe in a common European

identity, but I have to say I didn't believe a word of it.

Joining me now from Strasbourg is the Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, and the

Labour MEP, Mary Honeyball. Welcome to you both.

Daniel Hannan, first of all, just listening to that, is that the taste

of things to come, in terms of that rather feisty debate?

Yes, and you did not even show the best bits of Juncker. He was calling

for a pan European minimum wage, he was calling the 300 billion euros of

extra spending, because obviously Europe needs to spend more, that is

not the cause of the problem at all! The wonderful passage you showed

saying that the single currency was the defender of the people of

Europe, that will be news to the 19 million unemployed people in the

Eurozone. Then he finished by playing tribute to his heroes, force

one that Iran, home and coal. I don't think there could be anyone at

this stage how King that the British, was right to vote against

him. Clearly, Mr Juncker did not charm you. At the same time he has

said I am not in principle saying that no kind of repatriations of

powers to Britain can take place. If Westminster wants to recover

competencies and others agree, it shall be done. So he might not be

this block to reform that you and others have stated. The word he just

used for that package was reform. So reform has become absolutely

meaningless. When Juncker means it to mean more Europe everywhere.

Clearly we need a different word. You are right though, the deal we

should be going for is a series of unilateral repatriations which will

give something closer to what the Swiss and the Norwegians do, where

we are in the free market, but outside the political union. What I

think is a mistake is to try to go for a pan European reform. It is

very clear that isn't on offer. A man espousing the views you have

just shown was elected by 22 governments. Mary Honeyball, you are

desperate to come in. As Daniel well knows, that package she has talked

about, Britain coming out of the US not on offer, nor I content is

actually what the people of the UK actually want. It is only UKIP and

some Eurosceptics like Daniel who was to see that. The point I would

like to make is that David Cameron, our Prime Minister, really handled

the negotiations over Juncker very badly. He missed making the

alliances which she could have done, and I believe that if Cameron had

been better at doing that, we may not find ourselves in the position

of only having Jean-Claude Juncker here today. So I think that David

Cameron has a lot to answer for. It is therefore wrong, I think, to talk

about this is a stitch up. It is a bit more than a stitch up, and the

way it worked was that under the Lisbon Treaty the European party had

to be consulted about who would be president of the commission. And the

current system emerged. And it is exactly like choosing a government.

When you vote in the UK, the largest party actually then provides the

Prime Minister. This system that was operated today is not very different

from that. Are you a fan of Jean-Claude Juncker? He was not the

candidate to which your party belongs, are you confident that this

arch federalist, as people like Daniel Hannan see him as, is going

to deliver what you and the Labour group want? Well, as I said, it was

not a stitch up, partly because the Labour MEP did not vote for

Jean-Claude Juncker. We have never supported him, because we don't

think he is going to deliver a lot of the things we would like to see.

We want to see jobs and growth in Europe. We want to see unemployment

come right down, we wanted to see action on climate change and energy

security. We want to see better wages. We want a proper reform and

changed agenda in Europe, and we don't believe that John Claude

Juncker, who is not of our political family, we don't believe he can

deliver that. Labour didn't have an alternative candidate they were

pushing but do you think that Jean-Claude Juncker, now as European

Commission President hastens or coup could Hayesen British departure from

the EU? I do shall -- or could hasten.

It puts an end to the idea of fantasy. The idea that British

politicians have been pushing for 40 or 50 years, the idea that we could

create this thing called a Europe of Nations in large, free trading

Europe. Plainly that is not what he is talking B he has just won the

support of 26 out of 28 governments. He, in about ten minutes' time I

think will win the support of most ME pe. Ps, we should stop deluding

ourselves and fantasising about the kind of EU we might have liked and

face up to what has taken shape on our doorstep and ask the only

question that matters - will he be part of that or follow into this

United States of Europe or can we have a different relationship of the

kind that all the other non-EU states in Europe have, where we were

open market inter-governmental cooperation and military alliance

but on the basis that our own law is supreme in our territory. I would

like Daniel to explain what that would mean for the UK? We know that

over half of our exports could to Europe. It is not true. We know how

important the single market Europe. It is not true. We know how

our country. I don't believe we can have one without the other. It is no

longer true that over half of our exports go to Europe. We are trapped

in a trade block that is sinking. I do not want to see a superstate. I

want to see reform and change but I don't think that Jean-Claude Juncker

account person to do that. I will have to leave it there. You

supported him. We have to stop you there. Apologies. We will get you a

better earpiece next time. Later this week the House of Lords

will be debating the The Private Member's Bill - bought

by Labour peer Lord Falconer - would make it legal for terminally-ill

adults in England and Wales to The former Archbishop of Canterbury,

Lord Carey, and even Desmond Tutu, are in favour of such a change

but many people still oppose it. Here's what Baroness Tanni

Grey-Thompson had to say after the Supreme Court ruled against

right-to-die campaigners last month. The law we have is not perfect but I

think the proposition that we have before us moves the line in the sand

too far the other way, where, it is open to interpretation that people

may be coerced or encouraged or because they don't have the right

support around them, they think that this is the only option that they

have. And at the moment, you know, if there is circumstances where

somebody, you know, has the wrong type of help, you know, the police

investigate and there is a possibility of bringing action. If

Lord falconers' bill, as it stands, go goes through, there will not be

that kind of investigation. We are joined by Lord Falconer and Dr

Vivienne Nathanson from the BMA who oppose a change in the law. What

will be aloud over your proposal? Where somebody has a diagnosis of

six months or less to live and two doctors have certified that the

person has the mental capacity to make the decision as to whether or

not they should be given a prescription which they can take and

the doctors both certify that that person has the firm and settled

intention that they wish to take their life, then they will be given

a prescription but they have got to take T so what will be authorised,

subject to the safeguards is the giving of a prescription, to

somebody to take their own life. A lot of pressure on doctors. Isn't

it? Not at all. Doctors are used to treating people in the last days of

their life. What my bill does, is that it means that for those who are

clear about it, they won't have to struggle and fight maybe for two or

three more days of life. The BMA is very clear in its position, no

change, no assisted dying. Why? Mainly because we have listened to

what doctors have to say. While there are a wide variety of views,

the majority are against it and they are worried. The majority of

doctors, not the public? The majority of doctors. Remember, you

are asking that doctors that instead of having as the basic remit of

their role to be to alleviate suffering, to help and look after

people, to give them control over their lives, what you are saying is

they will help people to end their livers and for doctors that is such

a fundamental change, that the majority are saying they wouldn't be

prepared to do this. But they are out of step, aren't they, with

public opinion? You see a doctor's role differently in the way you have

outlined but over 80% of people in the British attitudes study have

said a doctor should be able toned the life of a terminally ill person.

# I think the difference here is doctors come to this from a

different position. That position is understanding what can be done. A

large part of a doctor's concern is that this would lead to people

feeling that death was the best option for them, whereas in fact

palliative care and so on maybe able to offer them those last few days,

weeks or months, in a situation which is acceptable to them. It has

to be what the patient wants. What about the dangers inherent in this?

There are dangers? People could be pressurised into ending their own

lives. And I'm sure you would not be happy about that. Not at all. In a

way that people has said that legalising assisted dying, is the

sword of dchl amaclese hanging over people's heads. It is beater and

safer position than one and what the Supreme Court said, in a situation

where somebody takes their own life and there is an investigation

afterwards as to whether there was pressure. Can you put safeguards in

place, legally? I don't see any problem with it. The problem with

the debate is principle and practice get muddled. The principle is the

one that Charlie has been talking about, that people should have the

autonomy to make debt significance. That is what is supported, I think

-- to make the decision. I think that's what is supported because

medical science have reached the stage where people can be kept alive

forever. They should be able to say, to seems to me - enough is enough

and be helped to bring their lives to an end but, of course, the

safeguards that need to be put in place, need to be the best possible

safeguards that can be devised. I don't see a problem with this. We

already, - those judges who sit in the Family Division already take

these decisions frequently. The only point in which I would disagree with

Charlie is with leaving it to the doctors. I would in fact shift that

to the court. I would make a judge make that final decision, which is

what he does now in circumstances where we are dealing with PVS

patients, where we are dealing with children who can't make up decisions

for themselves, for the mentally incapacitated and we are very used

to doing it. They are very difficult decisions but they are tried

extremely sensitively in public and there is nothing secret about it. I

would be uneasy about leaving it to doctors. I think it is putting too

much responsibility on them. Wouldn't that be a safer, judicial

way of dealing with it? We considered carefully whether or not

is should be a court-based decision process. A lot of people concluded

that but the conclusion we have reached is that it is much better

that it be done by the doctors, some who maybe involved in the treatment

of the patient. They don't want to do it. That is the key, isn't it? I

very much question what Vivien is saying is the view of the doctors. I

really that that, with the greatest of respect, my experience of talking

to a lot of doctors is that there are some who are very opposed to it

be, there are some who are very in favour of it, the vast majority what

a clear decision to be made about it, so that they, the doctors, know

where they stwand. They would be following the law. Exactly. Would

that change your attitude? Well, obviously if there was a law we

would have to look at what that meant from doctors but the evidence

we have from doctors is that the majority wouldn't want to take part

in this. But we know there are some who would be willing. I don't argue

about that. The question is whether those who are not willing, feel that

this could damage their relationship with patients. That's part of the

sensitivity here. You are a doctor, how would you feel personally,

putting aside the views you are expressing of the BMA, how would you

feel about making that decision personally? I would feel

extraordinarily difficult. Really? Yes Having started my career working

in palliative medicine. One of the things that is key is talking to the

patient Bo and finding out what they want and making sure they are

getting all options. What worries me and a lot of doctors s that a lot of

patients don't get every option of palliative care available. The

second thing is absolutely we must never force people to have a

treatment that would extend their life that they don't want. It is

part of the sensitivity. It is one of the things that doctors, we know,

is people are more frightened, is being forced to have a treatment

that is unacceptable. I will have to leave it there.

Now, have you ever said "I do" or more to the point, asked, "will you

marry me"? Well, apparently after decades of decline, getting married

is more popular. But how important is marriage when it comes to

bringing up a family? Here's Eleanor.

Love to and to cherish until death do us part. We all love celebrating

a good wedding but how many of us think marriage really is essential

when it comes to having a family? I don't believe it is important at

all. Even though we are married. You don't have to have married. You can

have a stable relationship and bring up children without having to

commit. I'm 50/50 on that. Oh, gosh, very important. That's bus I'm a

Christian. -- -- that's because. Since the 107s there has been a

long-term decline in weddings in England and Wales. That's because

more couples are living together without getting married and many are

delaying marriage altogether now, though, weddings are back in vogue.

Marriage is up 5% according to the latest figures from the office of

national statistics. It might be getting more popular but there are

still clear generation a differences on marriage, according to the

British Social Attitudes Survey. It says people born in the 1950s and

60s are much more likely to think you ought to get married, if you

want to have children, than people currently in their 20s and 30s. And

the differences and opinion on marriage are played out in the

political sphere, too. ! Those who are Conservative supporters are much

more likely to think that marriage and children go to together than

Labour and certainly Liberal Democrat supporters. You can see why

this is an issue which has been a particular touchstone for the

Conservative Party. Why it has wanted to reintroduce the marriage

tax allowance because its supporters are particularly still in favour of

marriage and certainly in favour of marriage when children are involved.

And some MPs couldn't be clearer on the value of tying the knot. I think

marriage is absolutely critical. As the previous Labour Government

established when they did a report supporting families, marriage is

historically the best foundation for bringing up children. There is no

point in denying it and we face a real problem in this country, with

dysfunctional families. Every Member of Parliament experiences it. We see

the trail of human misery. Family breakdown is now costing this nation

?46 billion a year, more than we spend on defence. I used to work at

the Children's Society before I was elected to Parliament. What I saw

there is that for children the most important thing is they had strong,

loving relationships with their parents and their wider family. So,

while we should celebrate marriage and respect it as a great

institution, if children's parents aren't married they may have chosen

to express that commitment in a completely different way. We should

still respect and support that. Same-sex marriage became legal in

England and Wales after a new law was passed in Parliament last year.

As the institution of marriage is opened up to more people, some may

question its value, but the trend is on the rise.

We are joined by the writer and activist Julie Bindel who says

marriage is a Conservative institutions which curtail's women's

freedom and still with us, Paul Coleridge, previously a High Court

judge specialising in family matters and founder of the Marriage

Foundation. Why does marriage provide a better foundation for

bringing up children than having two loving parents who aren't married?

Because it lasts. The statistics are overwhelming that people who get

married for all sorts of psychological reasons that we

discuss, stay together longer than people who don't have children and

the overwhelmingly important factor in the upbringing of children, as

your film, one of your commentators on your film made clear, is for the

overwhelmingly important factor in the development of children is the

stable relationship of their parents and so anything that provides that

stability, which is what the Marriage Fundation is all about -

anything that reinforce that is stability is a good thing from the

point of view of children. You are going against the statistics, the

evidence of being married is better if you are going to have children.

No we have not polled those people who live in non-twra digsal

non-wedded relationships. They are increasing, although there is a

slight rise as the figures show in marriage, more and more heterosexual

couples are veering away, choosing not to share the same household.

Many children are being raised in non-traditional families and are

better off for T my person about the way marriage is being peddled as a

great institution is we are not looking at the number of women who

instigate stwors. The majority is about one in two of all marriages at

the moment are instigated by women, and the majority are either their

husband's infidelity or domestic violence. Now, many children who

grow up in environments, in marriage environments, are very badly

affected by domestic violence, by child sexual abuse and by very

unhappy relationships. That's not the sort of stability children

should be forced to - that should be forced upon children. And you must

have seen plenty of that in the family division, are you advocating

that couples should stay together even in those circumstances,

marriage, above everything else, is more important, whatever is going on

in that family? No, I am not advocating that, we never have

advocated that. What we are advocating is much more thought

before you break your relationship up, whether it be married or

unmarried relationship, because what we do know, and there is very recent

literature by experts that has demonstrated this, however you dress

it up, the separation of parents, the break-up of a parent 's's

relationship, affects the children for the rest of their lives. So

everything that can reasonably done to keep relationships reasonably

happy, and don't let's have a fairy tale ideal about long-term

relationships, whether they be married or not, should be done. And

the current level of breakdown, which as you rightly say, is miles

too high, needs to be addressed and tackled. And the government, all of

us, individual organisations like ours, needs to focus people 's minds

on the damage they are doing to their children. I can think of

nothing worse than staying in a relationship for the sake of staying

in that relationship. But do people walk away too easily, if there was

more, if not pressure, being put on them, but if there were more

agencies working with people to keep people together, would that not be

better? I think that is the worst possible thing you can do for women

and their children in particular. Many women are worst intermarriage.

We just have to look in the UK, never mind elsewhere, where was the

early marriage, chartered marriages, forced marriages, where within are

trapped because of religious organisation. -- childhood marriages

was the state is involved it is far more difficult to win in to leave,

and that is the last thing we should be doing, piling more pressure on

them. The view that women are shackled to that household has to be

very bad for the children. What about this idea of single parents,

in this whole debate, they are going to feel that people in the family

division do not regard them as being able to provide a loving,

division do not regard them as being able to provide stable home? And

that actually the only option is the institution of marriage? We have

never said that, I have never said that. But is that not the

implication? Well, I am very sad if it is. Single women do a fantastic

job. Single men, for that matter, though it is mainly single

job. Single men, for that matter, children know what an

extraordinarily arduous task it is, over many, many years and it is very

much more difficult to do it on your own. So, of course, they should be

given every plaudits are doing what they do. Are you advocating,

though, judicial activism here? Do you think it is right for a judge or

someone in a position to be advocating a moral standpoint, if

you like? It has nothing to do with it. I am not interested in people 's

morals. If they don't have children, they can have as have as far as I am

concerned three relationships a week. That is nothing to do with

what we are about. We are about children and the best outcome for

them. He has had experience in the family division of the misery that

has caused. Is it not worth listening to him? It still wants

people to stay married despite the misery. Interestingly, your

organisation was against equal marriage for lesbians and gay

people, when I think the reason they have been invited to join the

institution is because it is a failing one, with numbers dwindling.

We have to look at not just child sexual abuse and domestic violence

is a cause for the breaking of relationships, but the fact that men

within marriages are doing so little more housework and childcare than

they ever were. One minute per day per year for the last three decades

increase. No wonder so many women are unhappily married.

Let's get more on the reshuffle and our Deputy Political Editor, James

Give us the latest details. There is a brief lunchtime hiatus going on

here but in the last half an hour, we have had a string of women MPs

coming in with big smiles, and leaving that door with even bigger

smiles. By my count now, we have eight Wigan who have been promoted,

three obviously to the Cabinet that we have seen earlier in the day, we

have seen Anna superego she has been promoted, now a mid-ranking defence

minister. -- Anna Subri. And Rudd is an environment minister. Preeti

Patel Is joining the Exchequer. George Osborne's team. There is a

bit of redemption going on here. We talk about the women but we should

not forget that men have been promoted too. There are two new male

faces in the Cabinet, Michael Fallon and Stephen Crabb, and a lot of

other men being promoted too. What about the political impact, as we

stand now? I think the rest of Whitehall is sitting down, having

its lunch, thinking what does that mean? Clearly there will be a huge

presentational change in the way the government presents itself to the

outside world. We will see an awful lot of Michael Gove on our channels,

an awful lot of these female MPs who have been promoted to the front

stage. Will it change policy, and I think that is more of a subtle

question and one we will have to wait a while to see. But clearly the

Prime Minister wanted to do a reshuffle, hates doing them, this

time he has wanted to try and be bold, so he can try to break through

the Westminster bubble, to try and impact on some of the voters out

there who might just be engaging with this, to say there is a bit of

change, a bit of freshness. That is his aim. Whether the public respond

like that, we will have to wait and see. We are joined by the Sun's

political editor, Tom Newton Dunn and by Steve

Richards from the Independent. welcome to both of you. Tom Newton

Dunn, much more radical, much more different than any of us predicted.

Will it make a material difference to what we see in policy terms, or

is it all about presentation? Almost certainly not, this is effectively

cosmetic. Dramatically cosmetic, a lot of interesting faces, but it is

also not just the female element. There is also the rise of the

regional accents, to put it another way, the toffs are slightly down,

those with a more modest background are up. That is very important for

David Cameron to present this new, slightly softer face to the country.

They have been well aware now for a year or two fine, they have sorted

out the, tackling the deficit Benchley, they have done the hard

stuff, the numbers look good. But they have not translated the feeling

to victories. This is all about cosmetics. How could you change

policy, if you think about it? All the big reforms through, Iain

Smith's universal credit, free schools, there is not much new

legislation. It is how you present the legislation that is already

there. Do you think it will work, if we take what Tom Newton Dunn has

said, this is an election footing, clearly moving across to next May,

Lynton Crosby perhaps has a singer Prince all over this, the election

strategist? No, because in the end in British politics, certainly in

the build-up to an election, as far as voters notice things at all, they

might notice the leader, the Chancellor, if he or she is lucky,

and a couple of others, but not much beyond that. And we still have the

same leader, we still have the same Chancellor. If these moves have

happened in year one, there could be big policy applications, but I

completely agree with Tom, there will be no policy implications. The

strategy is decided at the very top and that strategy is in place. It is

about communicating the message, isn't it? Will that not be more

effective now? Although Michael Gove has alienate it a huge number of

people in the education world, he is a brilliant interviewee. He has the

art of the political interview back down to a fine art. Seeing more

within on the television at the margins will make a slight defence.

Otherwise, this will have very little practical consequence. This

charge, Tom Newton Dunn, that this has been the cult of the pale, male

and stale, has it been overstated? Cheryl Gillan said it had been a

long time coming, David Cameron should have done this a long time

ago, promoting able women to these positions. He was just answering the

charge that there were too many posh boys in the government and in

Cabinet, and they should have been more women promoted before now.

Because they have never had them. She and the Chancellor are both

correct. Don't underestimate, 17 ministers went last night, half of

them sacked. Owen Paterson did not want to go, Dominic Grieve did not

want to go, Damian Green did not want to go. These are to a greater

or lesser extent, the posh ones, the old ones, people who are not quite

as electorally presentable as perhaps they should be in this

modern day and age was that I agree with Steve, but I would not

underestimate the repeated effect of Esther McVey, Liverpool born and

bred, brilliant TV performer, and Michael Gove, the Mr and Mrs of the

TV studios and that they will have their own seats, you will have to

write their names on the back of the seats for the next nine months. That

seeps in. You think it will have cut through? It will to a certain

extent. David Cameron's problem is he is a terrible toffs and he is out

of touch, so say the polls. This will help, to a greater or lesser

extent, but it will help. Ideological aeon Europe, what do you

make of the changes, looking at that prism? It has become slightly more

Eurosceptic. We have a Foreign Secretary who has publicly

contemplated the idea of leaving the European Union. It is not that much

more right wing than the previous cabinet that Cameron led, but if you

compare it to the last time they won an overall majority in 1992, when he

had Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd and Michael Heseltine might at the top,

it is way to the right and more Eurosceptic than that major Cabinet

that won an overall majority in 1992. Cameron has not changed his

party, which is what he started promising to do. I wonder honestly

whether being Eurosceptic is right wing any more. What has changed

policy wise is that it is a more Eurosceptic Cabinet and it perhaps

ever has been under the Tories but look at the Labour benches. What is

Labour's response to this, Stephen Richards? I don't know, haven't they

put out a line that it has been the purge of the moderates. This should

be frightened on one ground, ASH macro they should be, what they need

to reflect on is that Cameron, at times, can do the leader role. He is

utterly ruthless. He has sacked a lot of people. He has brought about

sweeping change. It won't make any practical difference or electoral

difference, but he has shown he can rise to these legally challenges, --

leadership challenges, and that is one star that Cameron can cling to

after all of this. Apart from that, it hasn't made much difference. Has

he stored up any trouble for himself, David Cameron with these

people going on to the backbenches? Not really. They will make some

trouble. Owen Paterson will shout about climbing change but not

really. Thank you for being the guest of the day, Paul Coleridge.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

Andrew and I will be here at 11.30 am tomorrow with Prime

Ministers Questions, and all the big political stories of the day.